Netherlands

Policy scores for high-level arrangements

Official review of illegal wood product import/consumption problem
The Dutch government has not directly commissioned a review, but has carried out some limited non-systematic reviews in related areas. For example, the Dutch Ministry of environment (VROM) has checked the percentage of sustainable timber on the Dutch market.

National action plan
In the Netherlands, the focus has traditionally been on promoting sustainable rather than legal timber, consequently there is an action plan and several measures focused on this broader area, but not specifically on illegal timber. Nevertheless, certain measures focused on sustainability may still have a significant impact on the illegal timber trade if they contain relevant components and are effectively implemented. For France, the Netherlands and the UK many key actions, including trade-related measures, have to be coordinated at the EU level because they are officially designated as EU competencies. In 2003 the EU published a comprehensive plan with many measures aimed at tackling illegal logging.

Coordination process for relevant government departments
The coordination process now used in the Netherlands initially focused on broader issues, but now concentrates on timber.

Multi-stakeholder consultation processes
In the Netherlands, ad hoc consultations between stakeholders and the Ministry of Agriculture and Foreign Affairs have taken place (for example, on FLEGT and consideration by the EU of options for additional legislation to control imports of illegally harvested timber), as have roundtables on timber with parliament, among other processes; these consultations have included a broad range of stakeholders.

Notes: 1. Highlighted scores are particularly uncertain and may be inappropriate.
2. Scores have been assessed against fuller and more detailed versions of the policy questions than the short-form versions presented in the table above.
Full versions are included in Appendix B.

Downloads

Policy scores for legislation and regulations on illegally sourced timber

Analysis of existing legislation and regulations
Before implementing new legislation, consumer countries first need to establish the need for new legislation and inform the design, by analysing the potential of existing laws to prevent the import and sale of illegally sourced wood. The Netherlands did carry out a review in 2006, but it was quite limited in scope and did not contain any recommendations regarding additional trade-related legislation

Enactment of additional legislation
Trade matters are a European Union mandate, so efforts by the governments of the UK, France and the Netherlands to pass additional legislation have largely been focused at the EU level. The European Union enacted additional legislation in 2005 which empowers members states’ border control agencies to prevent unlicensed timber from producer countries which have signed bilateral VPAs (see Box 3.1) from being imported, although the legislation will not become operational until the first legality assurance system is up and running in a partner country.

The European Union’s FLEGT action plan also recognized that VPAs alone could not prevent illegal timber entering the EU. Not all timber-producing countries were expected to sign agreements; the agreements which were signed might not cover all types of wood product; and the bilateral controls could be circumvented by trading via – or processing in – third countries. The plan therefore instructed that additional legislative options for controlling imports of illegally harvested timber into the EU should be considered, with a recommendation ready by the end of 2004. The process has been much slower than expected, and it was not until October 2008 – four years later than planned – that the European Commission finished the process of analysis and consultation and made a formal proposal. At the time of the 2008 assessment, the new legislation was still under negotiation.

Notes: 1. Scores have been assessed against fuller and more detailed versions of the policy questions than the short-form versions presented in the table
above. Full versions are included in Appendix B.
2. France, the Netherlands and the UK are given a partial score for existence of additional legislation, based on the EU due diligence regulation currently in the process of being enacted. Scores for design of this regulation are based on the current European Commission draft.
3. The study considered that the US Lacey Act amendment was enacted too recently for a score for implementation to be assessed.

Downloads

Policy scores for enforcement arrangements

Customs officers in the Netherlands are not given specific training in identifying high-risk timber, although some training relating to timber listings is included within broader CITES training programmes.

Note: Scores have been assessed against fuller and more detailed versions of the policy questions than the short-form versions presented in the table above.
Full versions are included in Appendix B.

Downloads

Policy scores for international trade cooperation

Formalized trade or customs arrangements with major trading partners
The Netherlands has been among the most actively engaged member states in helping negotiate EU FLEGT voluntary partnership agreements (VPAs) with producer countries. The Netherlands has co-supported the process in Malaysia.

Formalized system in place for sending and receiving enforcement alerts
The Netherlands has not established formalized systems or procedures with source countries whereby they can receive and act on enforcement alerts regarding suspect shipments. It is likely that the implementation of EU VPAs and associated licensing systems and controls may provide a framework for the exchange of information, including relevant contact points, although more work would be needed than is currently envisaged if this is to develop into something substantial.

Notes: 1. Scores have been assessed against fuller and more detailed versions of the policy questions than the short-form versions presented in the table above. Full versions are included in Appendix B.
2. The EU countries receive a partial existence score for formalized trade agreements based on the FLEGT VPAs which are mostly under negotiation; partial scores on enforcement alert systems also reflect the likelihood that equivalent measures will be created within VPAs and associated legality assurance systems. The US receives partial scores for both policy questions based on the arrangements included under FTAs and TPAs; in the case of the enforcement cooperation and alert measures included in the agreement with Peru, it was not possible to assess implementation.

Downloads

Policy scores for government procurement

Public procurement policy – existence & implementation
The Dutch procurement policy was enacted in 2004. A 2009 study by the consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers judged that the Netherlands and the UK were among the seven ‘best performing’ EU member states on wood procurement, and found that the UK had the highest level of implementation in the EU in terms of minimum legal requirements, with 89 per cent of building projects and 93 per cent of furniture purchases using wood from verified legal sources. The figures for the Netherlands were somewhat lower (60 per cent and 56 per cent). Surveys of timber suppliers in the Netherlands and the UK have shown that government procurement policies have had a major impact on the overall market in both countries, with this impact intensifying during the last 18 months.

Level of adherence required (eg voluntary, mandatory)
The Netherlands' policy is mandatory for central government, but allows some limited exceptions to all or part of the standard where no compliant supplies exist for a given product.

Covers all wood products, including paper
The Netherlands' policy includes all wood products including paper and furniture. As far as Chatham House was able to determine, however, it does not include wood used temporarily (such as hoardings or plywood shuttering) or make specific reference to recycled wood.

Independent certification/verification schemes minimum requirement
The Netherlands' policy does not require wood to be independently certified as sustainable or verified legal under an established scheme in all cases, but does have very strict standards for evidence which are difficult to meet any other way. The Netherlands also assesses certification and verification schemes against minimum standards.

Assistance for government purchasers (advice, guidance, training, etc.)
In 2009 the Dutch government commissioned Probos, a consultancy firm, to provide an independent advice and guidance service on wood procurement in the Netherlands for government purchasers.

Implementation systematically monitored and assessed
In the Netherlands, the policy requires systematic monitoring to take place at regular intervals, but currently relies on self-reporting by individual government departments; as in the UK, this has proved ineffective since many fail to report or do so inaccurately. Improvements to the monitoring methodology are being planned.

Note: Scores have been assessed against fuller and more detailed versions of the policy questions than the short-form versions presented in the table above.
Full versions are included in Appendix B.

Downloads

As well as assessing the enforcement capacity of the government, data on enforcement activity such as seizures of illegally traded wood products give an indication of a government’s response to illegal logging. It is important to note that while an increase in the number of timber seizures could indicate a reduction in illegal logging as a result of increased enforcement activities, it could also indicate that illegal logging is on the rise (with more illegal timber available to be seized).

Source: Personal communications with relevant government officials in countries concerned.
Note: The table does not include very small seizures and those of non-wood products such as seeds and medicinal items. There were no relevant seizures in Japan during the period.

Downloads

Summary of policy scores for the processing and consumer countries (as % of maximum)

Downloads

A coherent and transparent policy framework that is effectively and consistently enforced is a prerequisite for tackling illegal logging and the trade in illegal timber. An assessment of the following aspects of government policy has been undertaken for consumer countries, considering both its design and the level of implementation: high-level policy, legal framework, law enforcement, international engagement and public procurement policy. In addition, enforcement data were compiled.

2013 Assessment

This microsite has been funded by UKaid from the Department for International Development. Additional support has been provided by TRAFFIC as part of the Responsible Asia Forestry and Trade (RAFT) program, with funding from the Australian Government. Follow us on Twitter @CH_Logging. For the latest news and events on illegal logging, visit > illegal-logging.info.